HVAC-Talk site will be slow for the next few days. It's normal site/server maintenance. Thx -Dad

Welcome to HVAC-Talk.com, a non-DIY site and the ultimate Source for HVAC Information & Knowledge Sharing for the industry professional! Here you can join over 150,000 HVAC Professionals & enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to HVAC/R. You are currently viewing as a NON-REGISTERED guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register; for a free account. As a registered Guest you will be able to:

Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from nearly 3 million posts.

Is it not interesting how data can be manipulated, to meet ones own requirements (no finger pointing). I think there is little conclusive evidence either way. So any change either way may only make a small change.
So let bring anew one into the mix, how many cars are used as the weapon of choice for the purpose of homicide.
Which then has the higher ratio guns or cars?

I doubt if even I could find any empirical data on that particular ratio.

However I would suggest that, in this case, the gun would be used more in a premeditated manor than a vehicle

Is it not interesting how data can be manipulated, to meet ones own requirements (no finger pointing). I think there is little conclusive evidence either way. So any change either way may only make a small change.
So let bring anew one into the mix, how many cars are used as the weapon of choice for the purpose of homicide.
Which then has the higher ratio guns or cars?

How could you ever determine whether something that is deemed an accident was not in fact vehicular manslaughter or downright murder by vehicle?

In essence, you are proving the very point you are attempting to justify; any statistics can and will be manipulated in favor of the agenda of the statistician.

This reminds me of a mob boss interviewing for an accountant. He asked just one question; "What is 2 plus 2". After having a dozen of so applicants anwer "four" to that one question, the mob boss hired the last applicant who when asked the same question, walked over to the window, lowered the blinds and then whispered into the mob bosses ear; "What do you want it to be?"

I doubt if even I could find any empirical data on that particular ratio.

However I would suggest that, in this case, the gun would be used more in a premeditated manor than a vehicle

In NZ a few years ago ( I know nobody cares about NZ), we had a car drive with intent into a group of party goes, and killed a few, this on its own was higher than murders by guns for that year. But generally speaking i would have to agree with your statement.

How could you ever determine whether something that is deemed an accident was not in fact vehicular manslaughter or downright murder by vehicle?

In essence, you are proving the very point you are attempting to justify; any statistics can and will be manipulated in favor of the agenda of the statistician.

This reminds me of a mob boss interviewing for an accountant. He asked just one question; "What is 2 plus 2". After having a dozen of so applicants anwer "four" to that one question, the mob boss hired the last applicant who when asked the same question, walked over to the window, lowered the blinds and then whispered into the mob bosses ear; "What do you want it to be?"

Correct.

I had seen the mob boss story before. almost similar to what clients ask me to write on insurance claims.
Twas just a bit of sport, on this occasion.

It is a beauty of day, time to go down the river and cool off.

Breaking news
" Most americans, with or without a gun a had a great day and where not affected by crime" Fact!

I'm going to use reverse liberal logic here: The Pro-abortion crowd has argued if you outlaw abortion, women will still get abortions only under less controlled conditions so many may get injured or die. Therefore, in the liberal mindset, it is better to allow them to "break the law" as it were.

Ok, if you confiscate guns, people will do what the criminals do now an buy them on the black market so everyone who wants a gun will have one. The difference is, the price will skyrocket leading to something akin to drug wars. There will be gang-style murders, buys gone bad, rip-offs, payback murders, etc. Moreover, any guy with a vise and a hacksaw will figure out how to manufacture zip guns and better. Therefore, it will not eradicate guns but simply increase crime by several factors. You will have homemade guns blowing up on use. Homemade guns with no safeties accidentally discharging, people dying from substandard gun failures, and gang wars. Therefore, in order to save lives, reduce crime and protect the people from themselves, we need to not only nix gun control but make more guns available to more people.

How many times are guns used for transportation, which for society is much more important than the few rare times in your life you need a gun for self defense?

Cars have better safety stats hands down, but it doesn’t stop people from misinforming with stats.

I would differ: people adapt... If there were no motor vehicles... folks would figure out a way to live... AND
If there were no guns in the hands of private citizens two things would happen:
One: Crime would go UP, and
Two: folks would figure out a way to protect themselves... probably not as safe a way as the current quality of guns.

So as Hearth noted above: LEAVING guns in place as they are... makes more sense.
Might want to watch the video in Post # 2444. Seems one polecat understands. BTW: this guy was elected from the most heavily Hispanic part of Texas... even the immigrants understand better than the libs do.